ASHA GARG Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned award dated 1. 10. 1999 claiming enhancement over and above the compensation amount of rs. 4,25,000/- as awarded by the tribunal. Brief summary of the facts to deal with the contentions of the parties are as under:-On 07. 01. 1991 at about 11:25pm, the deceased Shri Yogendra Garg was driving his two wheeler scooter bearing registration no. DAD 2496. While he was proceeding on the Rohtak Road in order to go to his residence in Karol Bagh, New delhi and reached the outer gate of Transport Centre on Rohtak Road, a truck bearing registration no. PJK 337 came from behind and took a left turn abruptly to enter the Transport Centre from the outer gate, as a result, the truck struck against the rear side of the scooter. Due to forceful impact, Shri yogendra Garg along with the scooter was thrown on the road and sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to those injuries.

(2.) MR. Dushyant Swaroop counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal has not taken into consideration the last income tax return and the assessment order placed on record. The contention of the counsel for the appellants was that the death in the present case had taken place on 7. 1. 1991 and the tax return was filed on 28. 03. 1992 and the assessment order in the case was passed on 3. 6. 1992. Counsel thus contended that immediately after the death of the deceased, steps were taken as per the requirement of Income Tax Act to file the return. Counsel further submitted that the amount as disclosed in the said income tax return cannot be said to be on higher side if income tax return of the preceding year is taken into account, and on comparison it will be manifest that there was a very small increase in the subsequent year. Counsel thus contended that the tribunal should have given weightage to the said income tax assessment order instead of ignoring the same. Counsel for the appellants further contended that the deceased was 29 years of age at the time of the accident and the appropriate multiplier according to the Second Schedule of motor Vehicles Act is 18 instead of 15 as applied by the tribunal. The contention of the counsel for the appellants is that although the death had taken place prior to insertion of Second Schedule in the Motor Vehicles Act but still the analogy of the same can be taken. Another contention of the counsel for the appellants is that the tribunal has wrongly allowed deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses although the deceased was survived by his young widow of 27 years of age, two sons and parents besides his sisters. The contention of counsel for the appellants is that the deceased was the sole bread winner in the family, therefore, the said condition of large family could not have been ignored by the tribunal. Counsel thus contended that at least deduction of 1/4th or 1/5th from the personal expenses should have been made by the tribunal. Counsel further stated that no other amount towards loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses have been allowed in favour of the appellant.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, counsel for the respondent no. 1 insurance company refuted the said contentions of counsel for the appellant. The counsel further stated that the award is just and fair and requires no interference or enhancement and thus the appeal must be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award.